|
In Winan v. Starbucks (SDNY 2011), five former assistant store managers sued Starbucks claiming that they were entitled to share in the "tip jar" monies left by customers. Starbucks had a policy that permitted only baristas and shift supervisors to share in the tip jar money. The ASMs argued that, despite their title, their duties required them to perform the same or similar job functions as the baristas and shift supervisors and, therefore, they should be permitted to share in the tips. The judge disagreed. Judge Swain granted a motion for summary judgment in Starbucks' favor.
|
|
|
On 9/14/11, a judge in Missouri certified a collective action involving Papa John's delivery drivers. The delivery drivers claim that they were not properly reimbursed by Papa John's for the costs they incurred to operate their delivery cars and trucks. The drivers also claim that they did not receive appropriate minimum wages as a result of Papa John's failure to reimburse them for these charges. This suit involves drivers for Papa John's stores located in Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
|
|
Expediters (a/k/a "quality assurance" workers) are not tipped employees. A few years ago, a Houston jury found Chili's tip pool policy violated federal wage laws (FLSA) because waiters were required to share their tips with expediters. On 9/14/11, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the 55 waiters. Expediters at Chili's inspect completed food orders from the kitchen, garnish plates, and delegate to servers and bussers the delivery of food to customers. However, to be eligible to receive tip pool distributions, an employee must have direct customer interaction - something the expediters did not have.
|
|
On 9/7/11, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of 80 exotic dancers that they had been misclassified by their employer as "independent contractors" instead of "employees." The strip club, known as "Onyx", classified the dancers as Independent contractors and, as a result did not pay them minimum or overtime wages, did not provide the dancers with any benefits, etc. The Court granted the dancers' motion for summary judgment -- finding that Onyx exercised sufficient control over over the dancers' work environment, determined the dancers' opportunity for profit and loss, such that the dancers were truly "employees" under the federal wage laws. This decision follows a long line of cases finding exotic dancers to be "employees" rather than "independent contractors." Nevertheless, strip club owners continue to misclassify their dancers as independent contractors in order to avoid federal wage obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
